[Jonathan Cummings]

I played CGL yesterday on a cool misty day.  My expectations were somewhat in check based on a fair amount of luke-warm responses from gca posters and others. 

I was very pleasantly surprised. 

I found a gem of a course both very playable (69.5/116 from the whites) and quite fun.  CGL reminded me a lot of Doak's Heathlands course in Myrtle.  Generous fairways, unpredictable bunkering - much of it in a Dye-like pot bunker style and inspired green complexes, with elevated greens and broad closely mowed surrounds promoting ground-game missed-green recoveries. 

The are half a dozen excellent holes at CGL with the par threes leading the charge.  With (likely) a very low maintenance budget the course was in surprisingly good shape with the bent greens running fast and the dormant Bermuda quite adequate.

Take-aways: too generous off the tee; tremendous motion in the land; varied and exciting approaches; stern bunkering; easy walking; lots of fun.

The four of us played on a Saturday, carrying our bags, in under 4 hours.  I'm sure summertime paces would be slower but even then 5 hour rounds are likely rarer than hen's teeth.

The likes of a Matt Ward would probably be unchallenged by CGL but the vast majority would find it a good little test.

TD - bring your bombshells on but I would play CGL before Heathlands, High Point, Riverfront and even (soon-to-be NLT) Beechtree.

JC

[Tom_Doak]

JC:  Just so you know, "too generous off the tee" + short = under 4 hours.

You just need to go back to Heathlands, High Pointe and Riverfront.

P.S.  Did you think that one par-4 through the trees was weird?  The clients had asked us to build something like Heathlands, so we had planned to cut down that section of woods ... but then in the middle of clearing they suddenly told us they wanted to leave those trees, so there is one "woods" hole in the middle of the round.

[Andy Troeger]

My recollection of CGL, admittedly spotty at best, is that its a pretty average course all things considered. Jonathan, most of your specific comments ring a bell in that its a course with above average playability and below-average challenge. The greens and the par threes had some interest, but the rest of the course was somewhat devoid of interesting hazards. Perhaps I've just forgotten them. The land itself wasn't particularly interesting, but the design made sense for the price range and the property itself. I wouldn't guess the intent from the client was to have a spectacular golf course, just a solid playable design. I can think of worse things.

I enjoyed the round there though and shot a good score. The short 18th (490 par five?) was playing downwind and I hit wedge into the green and my Dad had 8-iron. He made his eagle putt and I missed.

[Tom_Doak]

Andy:

The 18th was supposed to be a par 4, but they begged us to make it a 5 so that par wouldn't be 70.

Maybe it was the right call ... turned out you remember it more than any other hole because your dad had a chance to make eagle.  If it was a par 4 I doubt you'd remember that story.

[Andy Troeger]

Andy:

The 18th was supposed to be a par 4, but they begged us to make it a 5 so that par wouldn't be 70.

Maybe it was the right call ... turned out you remember it more than any other hole because your dad had a chance to make eagle.  If it was a par 4 I doubt you'd remember that story.

Tom,
That makes sense regarding the 18th. Without a tailwind I would imagine it wouldn't have been quite so much of a pushover that day, but I'm sure the people that play it enjoy the chance to make a birdie to finish the day.

Ironically I also played Rock Hill CC, credited to Tillinghast, on that trip. Until I played Lost Dunes about ten years later it was the only one of your courses I had seen and Rock Hill CC is still the only Tillinghast design that I've seen. Points to needing to see many courses from an architect's work before being able to come to any reasonable conclusion about their tendencies and their overall portfolio of courses. There are many other factors at work.

RHCC isn't half bad either for what that's worth--but I do recall it coming up on a thread about Tillinghast's weakest courses. Obviously I'm not much help there.

[Mark Arata]

We played CGL on the last day of a Pinehurst trip, and while I really did enjoy the course, I left thinking Tom was really mad when he built it....I think every par 3 from the back tees is 200 plus and some of them are just down right nasty......(the fact I had no business playing from the back tees is not part of this discussion, thank you very much)


It was a very good value, I think we paid 30 to walk, and the greens were a lot of fun, but the grass was dormant and it was very wet for some reason (we didnt get any rain in Pinehurst) ....would like to go back and play it when it was firm and fast, i think it would be a lot more fun.

[Tom_Doak]

Mark:

One of the par-3's (#11) was based on the Postage Stamp so I hope they have not put in a tee at 200+ yards!

You would have to have a long dry summer to see that course firm and fast ... it's built on heavy clay and it holds the rain well.

[JC Urbina]

Jonathan
  I recently returned to Charlotte to take a quick tour of the course this past November.  I had forgot how varied the greens were.
Mark
  The back tee for the postage stamp measures in at at 135.  The green complex is flipped over making the high ridge play on the right side instead of the left.

Working on Old Macdonald this past year and then peeking at the size of the greens in Charlotte was a real eye opener for me.

[Matt MacIver]

I like the short 11th, if you miss the green par isn't easy.  Overall I think the par 3s are the strength of the course - varied length, #9 uphill semi-blind landing area, #16 (?) difficult green to hit / hold. 

Tom -- the woods hole (#12?) never bothered me, in fact it breaks things up a little. 

There remains numerous rumors surrounding CGL future - the current one is that the land is on a 20-year lease, and when it expires in a few more years someone (the City?) will take it back and turn it into houses.  That rumor has been around for a few years and given the current economy I doubt the area needs new houses anytime soon. 

[Tom_Doak]

Matt:

The land for Charlotte Golf Links was indeed leased, for 25 years.  I think it is owned by an individual.  Anyway, if they don't negotiate to extend the lease, I suspect it will be turned to housing after that.  My son was a baby when we started that job and he'll turn 18 in March, so the lease has 5-7 more years to run.

It's been a long time but I am pretty sure the woods hole is #13 ... 11 is the Postage Stamp, and 12 the long par five.

[Mark Arata]

I guess it must have been just my sorry game that made everything seem like 200 yards.....I would like to go back and play it again, it was the last day of the trip and sort of a hit and run before catching our flight out, but I did enjoy it.  Having only played some of your higher end courses (PD, Lost Dunes, Stone Eagle), it was very interesting to see one of your (i am assuming because I dont know the timelines) earlier works on a somewhat lesser piece of property.

[Jonathan Cummings]

Tom - the place was sold to a management company some time back.  Have no idea the particulars but I do get the feeling the place exists on a small budget.  

You remember right about the holes.  Ten is a good dogleg four to an absolutely superb terraced greensite.  11 is the short 3, 12 the long 5 and 12 the "trees" hole.  Also on the inward half are 16 and 17, a pair of tremendous golf holes.  

I think you need to see the place again.

Jimmy - was it just you and Tom doing CGL?  I agree with Matt that the par 3s stand out, but damn near all the approaches were wonderful - into highly interesting and varied targets.

As a founding DRS member and member of a DR course I'm sometimes accused of being bias.  I liked CGL better then nearby Charlotte GC (restored Ross).

JC

[Matt MacIver]

I've played Tom's CGL probably two dozen times and only the newly restored Carolina CG (CGC) and Charlotte CC (CCC) once apiece.  (Jonathan - not sure which of these you're talking about).  The former is near the airport, the latter is...not. 

CGL has the least interesting piece of land of the three, with precious little elevation change to work with.  As I understand it for previous threads, Tom's group was given six months to construct the course and get out of dodge so the owners could start charging green fees.  The course is now owned by a course mgt company that owns 5-6 local daily fee courses. 

The new greens at CCC are as undulating as it gets (at least here in NC) - just being on the putting surface does not guaranty a two-putt, in fact there are several holes where it's better to miss green in the right place than just be somewhere on. 

The newly restored CGC is a blast, also with substantial elevation change and exciting greens.  Overall I would have to say that both of the newly restored private's greens add an additional interest level that CLT Golf Link's just doesn't have, most likely because Tom et al weren't given the time (budget?) to build them. 

[Tom_Doak]

Matt:

We just weren't trying to build greens as difficult as Charlotte Country Club ... we had somewhat restrictive clients, and were aiming for a playable, low-cost course.

Jonathan:

Yes, it was just me and Jim building Charlotte Golf Links ... it was under construction at the same time as Stonewall, so Gil and I were living in PA and I was making occasional trips to visit Jim in NC.  We tried to get the clients to hire an extra guy to assist with shaping, but by the time they called us back to take up the suggestion, about 50% of the course was already grassed!

Interesting to hear the holes you mentioned ... after the 17th, I would have picked the short par-4 15th as the other standout hole.

[Ed Oden]

I liked CGL better then nearby Charlotte GC (restored Ross).

Jonathan, that is a bold statement.  Were you that taken by Charlotte Golf Links or just underwhelmed by CCC? 

For me, the most interesting thing about CGL is that it doesn't even register on the Charlotte golf scene.  Forget the privates, CGL never enters the discussion when locals are considering public options.  Rightly or wrongly, it is way down the list of preferred public courses in the area.  I don't doubt that CGL's lack of local stature is more the result of external factors than a reflection on its architectural merits.  Regardless, at least in terms of local perception, the design hasn't been able to overcome those external shortcomings. 

Ed

[Jonathan Cummings]

Matt - right you are - CCC not CGC.  The new CCC's (I played the old greens also) are so undulating that it's more survival test.  I simply found CGL's green complexes more fun to play with better variety.

Ed - why CGL is so under the radar is simply unexplainable.  Maybe it was just me but I would bet if I were to gather up a clan of GCA-ers from this site and had them play CGL without any pre-knowledge of the course the overwhelming response would be "geez, this is one of the more architecturally interesting and fun places I have played."

Tom - I will see Heathlands, Riverfront and High Point again.  Unfortunately, there are 100s of additional courses I need to see a second and third time....

JC

[Tom_Doak]

Jonathan:

Your response to Ed just illustrates the enormous difference between "a clan of GCAers" and the average public golf customer in Charlotte, North Carolina.

[Michael Whitaker]

I liked CGL better then nearby Charlotte GC (restored Ross).

...at least in terms of local perception, the design hasn't been able to overcome those external shortcomings.

Ed - What are the external shortcomings to which you refer... the location, neighborhood, bad reputation? I've never visited CGL so I don't have any idea this means. Thanks!

[John Shimp]

Jonathan:
I'm biased but surprising to hear you say that CGL's greens are more fun and have more variety than CCC's newly redone greens.  I agree that 2-putts can be tough at CCC, but they are in my view a really fun and varied set of greens without a "theme" (e.g. front to back slope, all big or small, etc) in terms of green design.  I would think that most GCA folks would get a charge out of putting and pitching onto them.

Glad you brought up CGL though.  I do like it as well.  Unfortunately its a hard place to even notice anymore as it has a strip mall infront of it basically...

[Jonathan Cummings]

John - Are you a member at CCC?  If so, you have a fine club.  Tough course and fabulous old clubhouse. 

My brother lives 10 minutes for CGL.  Let's hook up next time I'm down and play there.  While I'd like most to play CGL with Jimmy and/or Tom, playing it with a group of gca-ers would be great too.  I'd love to get a little "calibration" and hear what others think of the place.

JC

[Andy Troeger]

Maybe it was just me but I would bet if I were to gather up a clan of GCA-ers from this site and had them play CGL without any pre-knowledge of the course the overwhelming response would be "geez, this is one of the more architecturally interesting and fun places I have played."
JC

JC,
No pre-knowledge I assume means not knowing the architect correct? I have a hard time believing even this group would find CGL much better than average. I'm not trying to knock the design team, as I said before I think given what they had to work with and the goals for the project I think they did a fine job, but the course itself is average at best.

I remember thinking #17 was the most unique hole on the course.

[Matt MacIver]

It's my understanding that the frequent public golfer chooses not to play CLT Golf Links for one primary reason - the five hour rounds.  The course has a reputation of slow play stemming from what I believe two things: 1) there is ALWAYS a back-up on the 2nd tee as groups negotiate the 90-degree dogleg; and, 2) given the wide open nature it's difficult to lose balls and thus perfect for beginners. 

I like the course more for certain individual holes rather than the whole, I'm thinking of the stretchs between 4-11 and 15-17...that's quite a lot of them come to think of it!

I've often wondered if they flipped the front and back whether they could eliminate that 2nd hole back-up....

[Tom_Doak]

Matt:

They would never flip the nines there because the 9th hole is a par-3.  And even if they did, the 11th hole (Postage Stamp) would cause some back-ups as #2.

I don't even remember the second hole very well, but from what I remember of it, I'm really surprised that it is severe enough to cause back-ups.

[Matt MacIver]

Tom - good thoughts on both counts, your probably right. 

#2 is a sharp dog-leg left with a inside carry bunker, cartpath and woods.  Trying to carry it causes problems.  There is plenty of room wide right but leaves 200 yards in, and the green is pretty small for that distance and normal clientele. 

#1 you recall is fairly straightforward -- straight, short-ish par 4 with the only protection on the slightly elevated/turtle-back green.  Maybe folks are playing #1 too quickly?

The back-ups typically last until the 2nd shot on the #4, when enough people lose balls right in the creek, to space things back out.  As you can see I've THOUGHOULY explored the course....

[Ed Oden]

I liked CGL better then nearby Charlotte GC (restored Ross).

...at least in terms of local perception, the design hasn't been able to overcome those external shortcomings.

Ed - What are the external shortcomings to which you refer... the location, neighborhood, bad reputation? I've never visited CGL so I don't have any idea this means. Thanks!

Michael, I was thinking mostly of a reputation for poor playing conditions and long rounds which detract from the quality of the experience.  My impression is that these factors carry far more weight than architectural merit when folks are considering the local public golf options. 

Andy, I agree with your comments.  Would Charlotte Golf Links have ever been mentioned on this site if it didn't have Tom Doak's name attached to it? 

Ed

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()